PETITION OF ORKNEY MARINE FARMS LTD AGAINST THE LORD ADVOCATE AND THE SCOTTISH MINISTERS [2021] ScotCS CSOH_112 (29 October 2021)

PETITION OF ORKNEY MARINE FARMS LTD AGAINST THE LORD ADVOCATE AND THE SCOTTISH MINISTERS [2021] ScotCS CSOH_112 (29 October 2021)

Reporters faced legitimate uncertainty regarding the effects of fish farm discharges on maerl beds and properly applied the precautionary principle; their rejection of the petitioner's arguments was not irrational or unlawful, and they were entitled to consider even small climate change impacts as relevant.

Citation
[2021] ScotCS CSOH_112
Parties
Petitioner: Orkney Marine Farms Ltd; First Respondent: The Lord Advocate; Second Respondent: The Scottish Ministers
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
29 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Petition refused
Legal Topics
Marine Pollution, Precautionary Principle, Judicial Review, Climate Change Mitigation, Priority Marine Features
Environmental Law Administrative Law Marine Pollution Precautionary Principle Judicial Review Climate Change Mitigation Priority Marine Features

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Orkney Marine Farms Ltd

Petitioner

The Lord Advocate

First Respondent

The Scottish Ministers

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether reporters acted unlawfully or irrationally in applying the precautionary principle under Policy GEN 19 of the National Marine Plan
  2. 2 Whether reporters acted unlawfully or irrationally regarding proposed relocation of fish farms to mitigate damage to maerl beds
  3. 3 Whether reporters acted irrationally in refusing appeals based on climate change mitigation

Ratio Decidendi

Reporters faced legitimate uncertainty regarding the effects of fish farm discharges on maerl beds and properly applied the precautionary principle; their rejection of the petitioner's arguments was not irrational or unlawful, and they were entitled to consider even small climate change impacts as relevant.

Court Disposition

Petition refused

Orders

  • Scottish Ministers' plea-in-law sustained
  • Petition refused